The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

[GAHorn]

Lately I’ve read and seen several articles/videos recommending a review of the old-advice to avoid turn backs to the airport if an engine failure occurs after takeoff. This was brought to my attention most-recently during my bi-ennial CFI renewal course and I was MOST surprised to see FAA even reconsidering this manuever.

All promotions of this manuever aside…. things come to mind that frankly, I’m shocked no one seems to have thought-of …or at least have not mentioned in their mostly-favorable recommendations to reconsider… So I would like to bring it up for discussion:

Number One: AFTER takeoff….. if one suffers an engine failure (meaning loss of sufficient power to maintain altitude)…. the scenarios depicted which I’ve seen always make the engine fail AFTER the departure end of the runway has passed. No consideration seems to have been given that the majority of takeoffs involve runways sufficiently-long to result in available runway remaining straight-ahead. Also, no consideration/discussion is offered in the event SOME runway remains…even if INsufficient to come to a complete stop.
(Seems to me that it’s far better to depart the end of the runway decelerating with the brakes-applied… than to smack something in a dive or while attempting a near-aerobatic manuever.)

Number Two: None of the scenarios seem to recognize that most runways are open to other aircraft…and that any departure at any ordiary field may involve multiple aircraft waiting for departure. I can imagine a mass-exodus from the Fly-In Pancake breakfast and someone decides to turn back immediately after departure …Fully Expecting an Open and Vacant runway surface.
The numbers of times I’ve witnessed several aircraft lining up at the Hold Short line awaiting their turn for departure…and as soon as the airplane ahead rolls down the runway the next guy …lines up and waits…. then observing the departing aircraft leave the departure-end begins his own takeoff-roll….
when just about ready to get the tail up off the runway…. … the guy ahead suddenly Reverses Course in a high-speed turning manuever to return and …LAND HEAD-ON.…!!..?? WHAAaaa. ?

Number Three: None of the scenarios mention the fact that most takeoffs are decided to proceed AGAINST the wind….and that a Return to Landing involving a 180-degree turn onto the same runway will involve a DOWNWIND LANDING! …and that a panic-sticken pilot will likely be so concerned about the return that a nose-down rush-to-the-surface will likely result in an OVER-speed condition…. with a lot of opportunity for a LOONG-landing…. one what has suddenly become a short runway…….and facing that oncoming/departing traffic

I feel these are major oversights in the Brave New World of “turnback” promoters….and worth some thoughtful discussions in the community.

[pdb]

Regarding George’s comments on turns back to the runway, I have comments regarding the practice from having done many myself in gliders and having trained many student glider pilots in the maneuver. A rope break on departure is a common abnormal launch procedure and applicants are typically required under the PTS (yes, we still have them in this case) to demonstrate knowledge of them and to demonstrate them in flight if required by the examiner.

With respect to George’s comment #1, landing straight ahead if suitable runway is available is nearly always preferred, especially at low altitude which for a glider is typically below 200 above ground. Avoiding a stall, or a stall spin is paramount. Promptly getting the nose down below the horizon and establishing proper glide speed is crucial, regardless of whether you land straight ahead or turn back.

Regarding #2, turning back to the runway and discovering another airplane has taken the runway may well present a problem. Options include landing back on the runway short of the other aircraft, landing on a taxiway, or on the grass adjacent to the runway. Takeoff are optional, landings are mandatory. Pick your least worst spot.

Regarding #3, landing downwind has its problems but landing too fast is usually not the biggest problem. Perhaps counter intuitively, stalling is. The reason is that when landing downwind, the pilot’s ground speed will be faster than a normal landing into the wind. Unless the pilot pays strict attention to the airspeed as shown on the ASI, they will be tempted to slow up so that the look and sensation of airspeed is closer to what they perceive in a normal approach, resulting in what can become a dangerously slow airspeed leading to a stall and loss of control.

However, if the pilot exercises proper pitch discipline and hence airspeed control, he will then discover his glide over ground is much greater than what he expects in a normal approach as a consequence of landing downwind. And when he touches down, he will loose aerodynamic control sooner, most likely, while he is still moving down the runway. This will be more challenging is stronger wind.

In a glider, a rope break above 200 agl is pretty routine and usually presents the opportunity for an easy turn back. In my my 170, I would not attempt a turn back below 600’ unless and until I was throughly practiced in the manoevre (at an altitude of at least three mistakes high) and knew exactly how much altitude I would loose in the turn. (I don’t presently know).

For those wishing to try this, start at 3,000’ agl, retard power, lower the nose, and promptly establish a coordinated 45°bank (into the wind if a crosswind is present.) Note how much altitude you lose in the turn. Then add a wife and kids factor to compensate for the additional time it will take in real life for you to recognize what is happening when your engine does fail. Use that figure to establish your minimum altitude for a turn back.

If you don’t have that, land straight ahead of with minimum deviations left or right to avoid the worst obstructions and don’t stall.

[Bill_Green]

The EAA had a good webinar on this subject last winter. It is probably still viewable on their website for those interested. Reinforcing what George and Pete have said is one simple fact, whatever else you do in an engine failure situation avoid stalling the airplane. Statistically there is a very high probability of fatality if the airplane stalls. Conversely, regardless of where you wind up, if you keep the plane flying until touchdown you will probably survive. Or, to quote Bob Hoover, "fly the airplane as far into the crash as you can".
Another aspect of these situations worth considering is the relationship between climb angle and descent angle. If your airplane glides at a steeper angle than it climbs, even a properly executed turn back may end up in the pucker brush somewhere short of the runway. Not always the best option.
Certainly best to have given the engine failure plan thoughtful consideration before takeoff, rather than waiting for the sudden unexpected power loss to mull over the options.

[voorheesh]

Good discussion. The FAA approves Flight Instructor Refresher Clinics (FIRC) and publishes Advisory Circular 61-83J with guidance on recommended content. Recent GA accidents are considered and loss of control remains the primary causal factor in fatal events. Loss of power following takeoff and the intentional practice of the scenario have resulted in fatalities which prompted the FAA to address the subject with CFIs. In Appendix A of the AC, you will find a paragraph that calls for CFIs to include this subject with students and to help train the decision making and skills necessary to safely handle this emergency. That development in 2018 may help explain why this subject is coming up more frequently. (The FAA is not promoting we teach return to the runway as an automatic response).

I am a part time CFI at a Bay Area flight school and this is an emphasis subject for us. I perform flight reviews and rarely have a client who discusses or briefs a takeoff. In fairness, they may be hesitant to talk too much with an instructor on board, but I suspect that many consider takeoff an easy maneuver without actually considering the life threatening hazards that can occur, all be it, rarely. So, I bring it up and recommend that every pilot mentally prepare for every takeoff. This includes awareness of surrounding terrain and a basic plan of what you’re going to do if the engine fails below a safe altitude. This is not a maneuver to be considered casually. Pilots should brief every takeoff either verbally or quietly to themselves as a means of focusing attention and being ready for any eventuality. This is a critical part of every flight. It’s not a time to be thinking about other things. Knowledge of an airplane’s gliding and turning characteristics is invaluable and practice at altitude will provide any pilot the opportunity to practice before having a real emergency. The observations by others in this thread are all helpful. NAFI has an excellent presentation on the subject by Captain Brian Schiff (The possible turn) and AOPA has some recent articles that compare gliding/turning ability of different airplanes. All good resources.

This is a serious subject. In my career I have had personal knowledge of 3 serious accidents involving engine failure on takeoff. My flight school boss observed a fatal accident at our airport involving an RV6 attempting a turn back at about 300’. He was astonished how this airplane lost control and dove into the ground in what seemed an instant. A tie down neighbor of mine and his wife suffered life changing injuries while returning home in their beautiful Stinson. He forgot to replace the dipstick at a refueling stop and experienced oil on the wind screen and a shuddering engine shortly after takeoff. His almost instant reaction was Damn! Followed by a desperate turn back to correct the problem. At an airport that afforded wide open space straight ahead. An acquaintance of mine instructed in both gliders and power. During a training flight in a light sport airplane, he was training a student pilot on emergency return to the runway. They lost control with fatal results. For me, that’s too many. As a flight instructor, I welcome the opportunity to to weigh in on this and think this is a worthy safety topic for the Cessna 170 community.

[DWood]

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-public ... qo5ZoL9WDY

[c170b53]

I’ve done this once, wrote about it our pubs and it wasn’t a total engine failure which let me get away with it. (Bozeman)
When leaving my airport, I always remind myself on every take-off, if the engine quits land straight ahead (cranberry fields).
Its fighting the instinct to keep flying rather than do the smart thing that’s likely the most difficult.

[darhymes]

It is important to note that the classic "turn back to the airport" does not involve a simple 180. Instead, it requires a turn of approximately 225 degrees followed by a turn in the opposite direction of approximately 45 degrees in an attempt to line up with the runway. All the while avoiding stall, avoiding structures and landing downwind.

Some airports with multiple runways may offer much better opportunities for landing on a smooth strip of asphalt but don't forget the aircraft that may be taking off or landing from that same strip.

Thoroughly surveying your home airport area for emergency landing areas will give you a much higher chance of survival and help to avoid the knee-jerk reaction to turn back. My home-base airport is surrounded by houses, businesses, and busy streets but it still has some open areas to land on...but not many. I have checked a few of my options out from the ground just to be sure they are viable. One had a huge metal pipe crossing right through the intended landing area. It was covered in dirt and was difficult to see from the air...

[voorheesh]

Every airport is different and it’s not feasible to apply a single strategy for every time. I try and evaluate each airport including variables like traffic, terrain, and weather conditions. A fellow CFI recommends using google earth to assess nearby feasible forced landing spots if you are unable to return or reach an ideal field. I try and think through every takeoff beforehand and use whatever resources are available. If I’m at a new airport, I’ll ask a local for advice if it seems advisable.

Years back I attended a safety meeting with Wayne Handley (crop duster/aerobatic pilot) and the subject was how to crash. We should be aware there are instances when we do not have a choice. Wayne stressed some fundamentals of crashing: Airspeed equals control/fly to the accident. Aim the airplane to avoid hitting any obstacles head on. The priority is to avoid injury to the occupants. Let the wings absorb energy if you have to. Try and aim so the fuselage will take the least of the brunt. You may well be forced to land in trees or in crowded spaces with obstacles but don’t panic. Aim. His main lesson was to be mentally prepared. Never stop looking, thinking, and flying.

I used to investigate accidents for the FAA and a few stand out. A relatively inexperienced pilot survived an engine failure approaching Pine Mountain Lake, CA which is in wooded, fairly steep terrain. He had to land in the tops of tall sugar pine trees (nowhere else to go). His biggest recollection was fighting a really powerful urge to haul back on the stick as the trees came up towards him. He was fighting panic and had the sense to overcome it, flew it into the tree tops, thus saving his life. His airplane was mostly destroyed, but he survived! (He ran out of gas because he tried to reach cheaper fuel. The FAA did not violate him. We all learned from his mistake and his subsequent fine airmanship). Another accident involved a Mooney departing Columbia, CA to the South years back and losing his engine on takeoff. He landed straight ahead in a somewhat open area but he collided with a surface rock head on with a sadly fatal outcome. The rock wasn’t all that large but it was visible. I wondered if in the heat of the moment, he either didn’t see it or simply didn’t recognize what a serious hazard it was. It also may have happened so fast there was nothing to be done. But it’s food for thought. Another note on that one: witnesses to the takeoff heard backfire and believed the engine wasn’t making power. If only he had aborted.

Accidents are the difficult side of aviation but we can learn from them. I do not have anywhere near all the answers, but I hope an occasional safety note helps.

[GAHorn]

I’m not sure that avoiding head-on contact with the final object is either possible in final moments when controllability is diminished…OR if it’s wise even in theory.
Example: If you are wearing an inertial-reel shoulder-harness it will be unlikely to restrain you with side-load decelerations such as aiming to hit a tree with a wing (which will tend to spin the aircraft creating a centrifugal moment)….versus hitting a (relatively) soft object as a tree with limbs and brush head-on at minimum airspeed. I.E. FLY-ing with speed into a tree seems less ideal to me than hitting the tree head-on at the slowest speed possible such as in a stall near the moment of contact.
(This reminds me of the comment “Tell me how hard you intend to hit the brick-wall and I’ll tell you if wearing your seat-belt will be useful.”)

The Columbia Shuttle astronauts didn’t die from the heat of re-entry. They died from blunt-force trauma from an out-of-control orbiter that slammed them around sideways because their upper torsos were unrestrained by inertia-reels that failed to lock/retracted in side-loads. It is believed they were fatally-injured prior to the depressurization-event due to that blunt-force trauma. (The helmets were pressure-vessels only…not head conforming impact-injury-resistant types…. their upper bodies and heads were brutalized by the slamming-about the vehicle experienced when the flight-control hydraulics failed. The subsequent depressurization and destruction of the shuttle would have resulted in their deaths also, certainly,…. but the sequence-of-events and the failure of their safety-gear was primary and acknowledged in the accident-report. It was a wake-up-call about the weaknesses of their inertia-reels…. they only work in a straight-forward deceleration….. unless they are lockable and that lock activated before impact. Plain harnesses properly adjusted are more effective in side-loads.

Asking a survivor how he thinks his “technique” of crashing is better than a theorized alternative method seems a bit silly to me if you consider that forces experienced in the final moments of an accident are so heavily dependent upon chance-encounter….. unless comparatively, of course, you hit the object head-on at minumum speed.

[voorheesh]

Wayne Handley was suggesting “crashing” at minimum safe speed versus stall spin which is a common cause of loss of control. I did not mean to suggest fast. He mentioned that at minimum speed, you have control to maneuver and avoid hitting something bad. He even provided a video of his own crash in an Ag Cat that happened during filming a movie. He flew up a blind canyon and realized he would hit the ground. He made a conscious decision to crash in the least threatening spot.

It was a long time ago, but I recall that survivor at Pine Mt. describing being panicked when he realized he was going into the trees. His urge to pull back on the yoke was, in his words, a panic reflex against hitting something. I think he overcame it by realizing a stall was worse so he flew it into the tops of trees a hundred or so feet off the ground. The airplane stopped forward movement and fell downwards through the branches. He did suffer some injuries, but it would have been far worse had he stalled. Again, I’m relating his statements. I think it’s a worthwhile story for pilots because that could happen to any of us and it helps hearing another’s experience.

[TFA170]

Happy to see mental preparation as the #1 thing here. On every significant event (takeoff, landing, airdrop, etc.), I assume I am going to fail until I succeed. Every single time I roll onto a runway to takeoff in any aircraft, I assume I'm going to abort right up until I lift off. I assume I'm going to lose an engine until it's not as critical. I assume I'm going to abort the landing until I actually roll on. This mentality helps shorten the "oh, sh*t" delay which is normal and keeps the alternative/abnormal reactions fresh and foremost in your mind. This approach to thinking isn't just for takeoffs or engine failures - it's useful for any critical phase, or any phase/operation that has abnormal procedures that are critical.

As for the very possible turn back, I have always practiced every year when I do airwork at altitude. I generally don't even consider the turn back unless I have 500' AGL. I also don't consider it if the next few miles off the end of the runway are relatively clear, relatively level - I'll land straight ahead....but I've already made that decision on the ground at 1G and 0 airspeed.

As for when to execute which procedure, I'll provide the standard aviation answer: it depends. There are too many factors to try and put a one-size-fits-all answer. In fact, ever trying to overlay an objective, nested, if-then, binary solution tree onto the subjective and dynamic environment of flight is a recipe for disaster - it always depends.

Wind was mentioned - it helps - it keeps you closer to the runway, it narrows your turn radius if you turn into it, and yes, it provides a tail wind when landing...something I don't consider a big deal unless I'm on a short runway, just something to be aware of. Normally, you're not going to have a straight head/tail wind component anyway, so it's a little silly to use that as your primary reason - it's part of the "it depends" scenario-based decision making.

At an uncontrolled and not-busy field, I will often take a 20-30 degree off RWY heading shortly after takeoff - if there's any significant wind (>10kts), I'll do this into the wind. The reason is precisely to aid me in the turn back if it becomes available and I have the altitude. By turning into the wind, I stay closer and the subsequent tailwind will help me get back to the runway - the risk with stronger crosswinds is overshooting the runway and running out of altitude - all figured out on the ground before I even get on the runway. I vary my angle off heading based on the wind...strong wind = greater angle off.

But I practice the turn-back at altitude at least once a year. I do it multiple times. I have a non-standard technique I won't share here because it does require practice and I anticipate it will be difficult to do "under pressure" - hence why I practice it somewhat frequently.

But simply saying "don't do this" is as much a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't always work as saying "always do this" - the answer, as it almost always does in aviation is, it depends.

ymmv

[GAHorn]

I believe there’s a sub-conscious hope in such scenarios that…”if we do this right….we can get this back onto the ground and not damage the airplane…”
The secondary thought is that we hope not to be maimed or killed.
That is wrong thinking.

If there’s a “strong wind”…(let’s say 20 mph)…. in an airplane that has a minimum flying speed of 50 mph…. landing straight ahead is a 30 mph crash.

Turning BAck to a runway…if you don’t screw it up and die in the turnback…. with that 20 mph tailwind means you’ll hit whatever at 70 mph.

The problem with the discussion about turnbacks is that the moment we begin to contemplate it… we automatically begin assumptions that are LEAST likely to actually occur. Our little imaginations subtly begin to manipulate the conditions of the challenge….. Conditions which (at arms’ length) we KNOW are unlikely to exist in the real event.
There is a universal condition we know that will exist: Slow flight into a headwind will result in the least adverse energy at impact.

“Fly as far into the crash as possible” is attributed to Bob Hoover. Unless I am at “pattern altitude” or higher when it quits… I have no intention of turning back to face the next departing aircraft…. or landing in an adrenalin-rushed overspeed downwind maneuver on what almost certainly will be a “short” remaining runway.

When it quits…. my thought will be: “This airplane now belongs to the insurance company and I want to get out of it alive and let them have it.”

I believe the most useful response is to think about a possible engine failure ANYtime in an airplane…. and to consider the existing conditions EVERYtime we shove the throttle forward for takeoff….as to what we are going to do….. True statement: It Depends.

[TFA170]

Again, those decisions and decision points are made and decided on the ground at 1G and 0Kts...eliminate as many variables as possible.

The other thing is proficiency and knowing your plane. If you've never made a downwind landing, you're cheating yourself of valuable experience.

And 20Kts of wind, on the surface, may be a deciding factor in not flying for many. It depends what the component is - perfectly aligned with the runway? Of course it happens, but it's 34 times as likely to not be aligned (and that's just dividing by 10). Far more likely there's a crosswind component as well - and that will have to be taken into account.

Because it depends, you can cherry pick a worst case scenario as easily as I can cherry pick a best case one. The real trick is to make your decision before it happens, know your airplane, and constantly analyze.

[flyguy]

I've probably posted this event way back when. My first engine failure/crash in my 170B was a night take-off at K59 in Atchison KS. Runway 18 is 3000 feet and a slight upgrade to the middle. I had done my runup at the turn-out at the north end and did a normal (for me) 20* flaps take-off roll. Accelerating to tail lift up and in the cool night air, became airborne near midfield. At about 300 agl one of the exhaust valve heads fractured and embedded on the top of the piston. The vibration was so intense i assumed a connecting rod had broken loose or a cylinder had separated from the case. That took about a millisecond to decide to get her back on the ground! The south end boundary fence, the road ditch on the main highway and across from there, is a huge slope down to the Sante Fe railroad tracks was the area I hoped to avoid! I knew from experience of the "no flaps" slips or high bank turns is a no no at low altitude. I didn't even consider the 'return to the runway' ! But with a full flap extension and the stall horn beeping, I slipped it and touched down onto the last 400 feet of the tarmac. Dodged the runway end lights and ran about 300 feet into the over run grass and did a ground loop at about 20 mph! There was never a thought to do a go around or try to turn back. IMHO - Go straight ahead and hope for the best. I was fortunate to have been flying a C170 and to have had that little acreage of tall grass to do the ground loop. Nothing bent and the engine was still running, but rough, so I actually taxied back to the Ad building apron!

[darhymes]

I happened upon this recent account of an engine failure on takeoff and subsequent turn back to the airport…

https://youtu.be/9FdRQiHyWQs